Abstract
This paper responds to Maria Wowk’s (Human Studies, 30, 131–155, 2007) critique of “Kitzinger’s feminist conversation analysis”, corrects her misrepresentation of it, and rebuts her claim to have cast doubt on whether it is “genuinely identifiable” as conversation analysis (CA). More broadly, it uses Wowk’s critique as a springboard for continuing the development of feminist conversation analysis through: (i) discussion of appropriate methods of data collection and analysis; (ii) clarification of CA’s turn-taking model and an illustrative deployment of it in the analysis of a single case and of a collection (of if/then compound TCUs); (iii) exposition of a feminist CA understanding of “participants’ orientations”, and of the relevance of the distinction between participants’ and analysts’ orientations for feminist work. Finally, I suggest that feminist work in CA makes important contributions to the development of CA as a discipline.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I have documented elsewhere (Kitzinger 2004) the intellectual history that led me—as an already established lesbian feminist scholar—to the decision to spend a sabbatical year at the University of California at Los Angeles, learning the foundations of conversation analysis from leaders in the field. The article Wowk critiques was my first attempt to formulate what might be involved in doing conversation analysis from a feminist perspective. Since then, I have published work in three distinct domains: feminist work that is not conversation analysis (e.g., Kitzinger and Willmott 2002; Kitzinger and Wilkinson 2006)—despite the fact that some of it analyses naturally-occurring talk-in-interaction (e.g., see Shaw and Kitzinger 2005 for a thematic analysis of calls to a helpline); conversation analytic work that is not feminist (e.g., Land and Kitzinger 2007a; Lerner and Kitzinger 2007a; Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2006)—despite the fact that some of these co-authors are feminists as well as conversation analysts; and feminist conversation analysis (e.g., Kitzinger 2005a, b) which embodies my commitments both to CA and to feminism. The claims made here about my work in feminist conversation analysis apply of course only to that subsection of my published work that I identify as feminist conversation analysis.
I am baffled by Maria Wowk’s (2007) claims (quoting Jeff Coulter and Harold Garfinkel as her sources) that social constructionists fail to appreciate the “objective facticity” attributed by social members to gender (as to other social constructions, p. 135). The term “social constructionism” derives (as she acknowledges, p. 136) from the work of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. They say (and I have endorsed their claims in my own work, e.g., Kitzinger 1987):
The reality of everyday life is taken for granted as reality. It does not require additional verification over and beyond its simple presence. It is simply there, as self-evident and compelling facticity. I know that it is real.” (Berger and Luckmann 1966, p. 37)
There are many specific criticisms raised by Wowk which there is no space to address in this article—and in any case I take it that a list of detailed point-by-point rebuttals would be tiresome to the reader. I will occasionally footnote some such issues as they are relevantly invoked by my main text. Note here that Schegloff’s reference to conversational practices as the “infrastructure” of interaction has resonances with the ‘macro’/‘micro’ dichotomy which he discusses more comprehensively in “Between macro and micro” (Schegloff 1987b): note that (as do I) he uses these terms while acknowledging their “utter relativity and likely hopelessness” (Schegloff 1987b, p. 208). For a feminist discussion of the macro/micro dichotomy see Speer 2005, pp. 97–109. For a discussion of the different levels of analysis involved in a CA study “ranging from relatively ‘micro’ levels involving the design of individual turns and actions, to more ‘macro’ levels involving the encompassing system of speech exchange and its relationship to the broader institutional and sociopolitical environment” see Clayman and Heritage 2002, pp. 21–25.
“A person” here replaces Wowk’s formulation, “a member of hotel staff”—which she employed since it was such persons who featured in the comparison of exchanges made in the article she was critiquing. I take it that she means her statement to apply to persons in general, and not simply to hotel staff.
In the field observation that launched this project, the differential question design cannot be accounted for in the same way, since the question under analysis opened the interaction. Since there was no prior talk that might provide a sequential basis for the differential question design, it is likely that the hotel staff were recipient-designing their questions with reference to who they could see their recipients to be (i.e. two women, or a man and a woman) and hence their likely relationship to one another. If recordings of a similar type become available, the challenge will be to show how the visually apparent genders of the recipients of the question are used by speakers in formulating question design.
Wowk (2007, p. 146, ft. 23) incorrectly reports that I was “the interviewer in one of these sessions”. In fact (as I say in Kitzinger 2000, pp. 181–182) the ‘session’ to which she refers was a university seminar group run as part of a course on human sexualities and I was the teacher running the seminar group. There was no “interviewer.”
In the interests of space I have reproduced only a part of the data (for more context, see the longer data extract in Kitzinger 2000, pp. 182–183), although I have retained the same line numbering as in the original. (Note that a typographical error [an extraneous “=” at the original line 24] has been corrected.)
In the co-present data that lacks video I cannot be sure that there were not head nods or other non-vocal signals of recipiency. All the data extracts included in my collection are either from telephone conversations (where body behavioural cues cannot be used) or from video-recorded interaction in which I have inspected the data for non-vocal responses.
The remainder include: anticipatory completions of the “if” component (Lerner 1996), corrections to the “if” component, and a small set of instances of interjacent overlap (Jefferson 1986) analyzably prompted by affiliative interactional concerns (see Kitzinger 2008). These map closely on to Lerner’s (1996) findings and will be discussed in more detail in Kitzinger (in preparation).
See Rod Gardner (2001) for a discussion of the differential import of these various response tokens in talk-in-interaction. I develop analyses of these specifically in relation to if/then constructions in Kitzinger (in preparation). Also in Kitzinger (in preparation) I analyse and discuss the minority of those parenthetical sequences (six of the 28 parentheticals in my collection of 300 if/then TCUs) in which more than a response token is produced by a recipient.
My comments here are not uniquely a critique of Wowk. There is a substantial body of work on gender and language that treats the use of particular words (e.g. “boy,” “woman,” “lady” or “lad”) as offering adequate evidence of participants’ orientations to whatever those words are taken to denote (e.g. gender). Not only is this deeply problematic (since gendered linguistic terms are neither necessary nor sufficient to show participants’ orientation to gender, Kitzinger 2007a; Stockill and Kitzinger 2007; Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2007), but this discussion deflects attention away from what I take to be the core meaning of the phrase “participants’ orientation” for conversation analysis.
This formulation of “participants’ orientations” has led to a misunderstanding that occasionally surfaces in data sessions (sometimes accompanied by use of the phrase “next turn proof”), according to which a recipient’s understanding is definitive of its import and the utterance itself is taken to have no “objective” meaning. As Schegloff (1996a, fn 6, p. 173) says:
This view (and its attribution to conversation analysis) is mistaken on many counts, not least of which is its total subversion of the possibility of analytically specifiable ‘misunderstandings’ …. Care must be taken, then, to distinguish between, on the one hand, the professional analyst’s undertaking to establish the understanding of some utterance in some interaction—which should indeed seek to ground itself in the recipient’s displayed understanding, if possible, and on the other hand the recipient’s undertaking to understand the import of some utterance, which clearly cannot be so grounded, for that would presume its own outcome.
Contrary to Maria Wowk’s claims about EM/CA, conversation analysts do not eschew the term “subjective” nor necessarily reject cognitivism: see, for example, Emanuel Schegloff (1996a, p. 157) on “The defense of intersubjectivity,” in which he formulates a conversation analytic perspective on “socially shared cognition”; Robert Hopper (2005) writing as “a cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis”; and Paul Drew’s (2005, p. 180) discussion of “cognitive states manifest in the details of talk.” This is a topic of ongoing discussion within conversation analysis: see Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter 2005 and the collection of articles on cognition in Discourse Studies 8(1) (including Kitzinger 2006c) for current debates.
References
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Cicourel, A. V. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 291–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 102–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253.
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 295–325.
Drew, P. (2005). Is “confusion” a state of mind? In H. Te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 161–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and recipient stance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Guimaraes, E. (2007). Feminist research practice: Using conversation analysis to explore the researcher’s interaction with participants. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 149–161.
Hayashi, M. (2004). Discourse within a sentence: An exploration of postpositions in Japanese as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 33, 343–376.
Heritage, J. (1990/91). Intention, meaning and strategy: Observations on constraints in interaction analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 311–332.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334.
Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & H. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. (2006). Communication in medical care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., Robinson, H. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(10), 1429–1433.
Hopper, R. (2005). A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In H. Te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 134–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9(1), 47–96.
Jefferson, G. (1975). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 2, 181–189.
Jefferson, G. (1980). The abominable ne: An exploration of post-response pursuit of response. Dialogforshung Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche sprache (pp. 53–88). Dusseldorf: Padagogischer Verlag Schwann.
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153–183.
Jefferson, G. (1989). Letter to the editor re: Anita Pomerantz’s epilogue to the special issue on sequential organization of conversational activities, Spring 1989. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 427–429.
Jefferson, G. (1996). On the poetics of ordinary talk. Text and Performance Quarterly, 16, 1–61.
Jefferson, G. (2002). Is ‘no’ an acknowledgement token? Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1345–1383.
Jefferson, G. (2004a). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jefferson, G. (2004b). A note on laughter in “male-female” interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1), 117–133.
Jefferson, G. (2007). Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 445–461.
Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (1989a). Liberal humanism as an ideology of social control: The regulation of lesbian identities. In J. Shotter & K. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 82–98). London: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (1989b). The rhetoric of pseudoscience. In I. Parker & J. Shotter (Eds.), Deconstructing social psychology (pp. 61–75). London: Routledge.
Kitzinger, C. (1995). Social constructionism: Implications for lesbian and gay psychology. In A. D’Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 136–161). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 163–193.
Kitzinger, C. (2002). Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Reprinted and amended version of Kitzinger, 2000)
Kitzinger C. (2004). Feminist approaches. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 113–128). London: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (2005a). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing normative heterosexuality in ‘after hours’ calls to the doctor. Social Problems, 52(4), 477–498.
Kitzinger, C. (2005b). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265.
Kitzinger, C. (2006a). Doing feminist conversation analysis. In J. Sunderland (Ed.), Language and gender: An advanced resource book (pp. 189–195). London: Routledge. (An abridged version of Kitzinger, 2000)
Kitzinger, C. (2006b). Talking sex and gender. In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods. London: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (2006c). After post-cognitivism. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 67–83.
Kitzinger, C. (2007a). Is “woman” always relevantly gendered? Gender and Language, 1(1), 39–49.
Kitzinger, C. (2007b) The promise of conversation analysis for feminist research. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 133–148.
Kitzinger, C. (2008). Conversation analysis: Technical matters for gender research. In K. Harrington, L. Litosseliti, H. Saunston, & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender and language research methodologies (pp. 119–138). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kitzinger, C. (in preparation). Parenthetical actions in compound if/then constructions.
Kitzinger, C., & Jones, D. (2007). When May calls home: The opening moments of family telephone conversations with an Alzheimer’s patient. Feminism & Psychology, 16(3), 184–202.
Kitzinger, C., & Kitzinger, S. (2007). Birth trauma: Talking with women and the value of conversation analysis. British Journal of Midwifery, 15(5), 256–264.
Kitzinger, C., & Peel, E. (2005). The de-gaying and re-gaying of AIDS: Contested homophobias in lesbian and gay awareness training. Discourse & Society, 16(2), 173–197.
Kitzinger, C., & Rickford, R. (2007). Becoming a ‘bloke’: The construction of gender in interaction. Feminism & Psychology, 16(3), 214–223.
Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (2006). Genders, sexualities and equal marriage rights. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 7(2), 174–179.
Kitzinger, C., & Willmott, J. (2002). The thief of womanhood’: Women’s experiences of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Social Science and Medicine, 54(3), 359–361.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 371–416.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2007a). Some uses of third person reference forms in speaker self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 493–525.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2007b). Closet talk: The contemporary relevance of the closet in lesbian, gay interaction. In V. Clarke & E. Peel (Eds.), Out in psychology (pp. 147–172). London: Wiley.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2007c). Contesting same-sex marriage in talk-in-interaction. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 173–183.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201.
Lerner, G. H. (2004a). On the place of linguistic resources on the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 151–184.
Lerner, G. H. (2004b). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (2007a). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 427–432.
Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.). (2007b). Referring to self and others in conversation. Special Issue of Discourse Studies, 9(4).
Maynard, D., & Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis, doctor–patient interaction and medical communication. Medical Education, 39, 428–435.
Mazeland, H. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1816–1869.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic Press.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H, Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: Free Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1974). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 12, 261–286.
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question”. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3/4), 104–152.
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 28–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987a). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987b). Between macro and micro. In J. Alexander, R. M. B. Giesen, & N. Smelser (Eds.), The micro–macro link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987c). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29, 1–63.
Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Accounts of conduct in action: Interruption, overlap, turn-taking. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 287–321). New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum.
Schegloff, E. A. (2003a). The surfacing of the suppressed. In P. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 241–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schegloff, E. A. (2003b). On ESP puns. In P. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 531–540). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schegloff, E. A. (2005). Whistling in the dark: Notes from the other side of liminality. Texas Linguistic Forum, 48, 17–30.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 29–327.
Shaw, R., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). Calls to a homebirth helpline: Empowerment in childbirth. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 2374–2383.
Shaw, R., & Kitzinger, C. (2007a). Memory in interaction: An analysis of repeat calls to a home birth helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(1), 117–144.
Shaw, R., & Kitzinger, C. (2007b). Problem presentation and advice-giving on a home birth help-line. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 203–213.
Sidnell, J. (2007). Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 29–244.
Sidnell, J. (2008, in press). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Speer, S. (2005). Gender talk: Feminism, discourse and conversation analysis. London: Routledge.
Speer, S. A. (2007). Natural and contrived data. In P. Alasuutari, J. Brannen, & L. Bickman (Eds.), Handbook of social research methods (pp. 290–311). London: Sage.
Speer, S. A., & Green, R. (2007). On passing: The interactional organization of appearance attributions in the psychiatric assessment of transsexual patients. In V. Clarke & E. Peel (Eds.), Out in psychology: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer perspectives (pp. 335–368). Chichester: Wiley.
Stivers, T. (2002). Presenting the problem in pediatric encounters: “Symptoms only” versus “candidate diagnosis” presentations. Health Communication, 14(3), 299–338.
Stivers, T., Mangione-Smith, R., Elliott, M., McDonald, L., & Heritage, J. (2003). What leads physicians to expect that parents expect antibiotics? Journal of Family Practice, 52, 140–148.
Stockill, C., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Gendered ‘people’: How linguistically non-gendered terms can have gendered interactional relevance. Feminism & Psychology 17(2), 224–236.
Stokoe, E. (in press). Dispreferred actions and other interactional breaches as devices for occasioning audience laughter in television ‘sitcoms’. Social Semiotics, 18(3).
Te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toerien, M., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Emotional labour in action: Navigating multiple involvements in the beauty salon. Sociology, 41(4), 645–662.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2003). Constructing identities: A feminist conversation analytic approach to positioning in action. In R. Harré & A. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political and cultural contexts (pp. 157–180). New York: Praeger, Greenwood.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Conversation analysis, gender and sexuality. In A. Weatherall, B. Watson, & C. Gallois (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology (pp. 207–230). London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Wowk, M. T. (2007). Kitzinger’s feminist conversation analysis: Critical observations. Human Studies, 30, 131–155.
Wowk, M. T., & Carlin, A. P. (2004). Depicting a liminal position in ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis: The work of Rod Watson. Human Studies, 27, 69–89.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jonathan Potter for bringing Maria Wowk’s article to my attention and for encouraging me to write a response, and to Estefania Guimaraes, Alexa Hepburn, Gene Lerner, Harrie Mazeland, Clare Stockill-Jackson, Emanuel Schegloff, Elizabeth Stokoe, Susan Speer, Merran Toerien and Sue Wilkinson for feedback on an earlier draft. I take full responsibility for the views expressed here and any errors are of course mine alone.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kitzinger, C. Developing Feminist Conversation Analysis: A Response to Wowk. Hum Stud 31, 179–208 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-008-9088-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-008-9088-7